Constitutional Illusions[2]

Written:Written on July 26 (August 8), 1917Published:Published inRabochy i SoldatNos. 11 and 12, August 4 (August 5), 1917.

      Published according to the manuscript.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1977,

      Moscow,Volume 25,

      pages196-210.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive.  

      2002You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work, as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Constitutionalillusions are what we call a political error when
      people believe in the existence of a normal, juridical, orderly
      and legalised—in short,
      “constitutional”—system, although it does not
      really exist. At first

      glance it may appear that in Russia today, July 1917, when no
      constitution has yet been drafted, there can be no question of
      constitutional illusions arising. But it would be very wrong to
      think so. In reality, the essential characteristic of the
      present political situation in Russia is that an extremely large
      number of people entertain constitutional illusions. It is
      impossible to understand anything about the political situation
      in Russia today without appreciating this. Positively no step
      can be taken towards a correct formulation of our tactical
      tasks in Russia today unless we above all concentrate on
      systematically and ruthlessly exposing constitutional
      illusions, revealing all their roots and re-establishing a
      proper political perspective.

Letus take three ideas which are most typical of the current
      constitutional illusions, and look into them carefully.

IdeaNo. 1 is that our country is about to have a Constituent
      Assembly; therefore, everything going on now is temporary,
      transitory, inessential and non-decisive, and every thing will
      soon be revised and firmly regulated by the Constituent
      Assembly. Idea No. 2 is that certain parties, such as the
      Socialist-Revolutionaries or the Mensheviks, or their alliance,
      command an obvious and undisputedmajority among the people or
      in “the most influential” institutions, such as the
      Soviets; therefore, the will of these parties and institutions,
      like the will of the majority of the people

      in general, cannot be ignored, and even less violated, in
      republican, democratic and revolutionary Russia. Idea No. 3 is
      that acertain measure, such as closing downPravda, was not legalised either by the Provisional
      Government or by the Soviets; therefore, it was only a passing
      phase, a chance occurrence, which cannot at all be regarded as
      something decisive.

Letus look into each of these ideas.

Thefirst Provisional Government promised to convene a
      Constituent Assembly. It considered that its main job was to
      prepare the country for a Constituent Assembly. The second
      Provisional Government fixed September 30 for convening a
      Constituent Assembly. The third Provisional Government, after
      July 4, solemnly reaffirmed that date.

Nevertheless,the chances are a hundred to one against the
      Constituent Assembly being convened on that date. And even if it
      is, the chances are again a hundred to one that it will be as
      impotent and useless as was the First Duma—until a
      second revolution triumphs in Russia. To appreciate this, you
      only have to detach yourself for a moment from the present
      hubbub of empty phrases, promises and petty doings which fuddles
      your thinking, and take a look at the main thing, at what
      determines everything in public life—the class struggle.

Itis clear that the bourgeoisie in Russia have become very
      closely tied up with the landowners. This is shown by the whole
      press, the elections, the entire policy of the Cadet Party and
      the parties to the right of it, and by speeches made at
      “congresses” of “interested”
      persons. The bourgeoisie understand perfectly what the
      petty-bourgeois Socialist-Revolutionary and “Left”
      Menshevik windbags can not understand, namely, that private
      landownership in Russiacannotbe abolished, and this
      without compensation, except by carrying through a gigantic
      economic revolution, by bringing the banks under popular
      control, bynationalising the syndicates and adopting the most
      ruthless revolutionary measures against capital. The
      bourgeoisie under stand that perfectly. At the same time,
      however, they must

      know, see and feel that the vast majority of peasants in Russia
      will now be much more to the left than Chernov as well as
      declaring for confiscation of the landed estates. For the
      bourgeoisie know better than we do, both as to how many partial
      concessions were made them by Chernov, say, from May 6 to July 2,
      over delaying and curtailing the various peasant demands, and as
      to how much effort it took theRightSocialist-Revolutionaries (Chernov, believe it or not, is regarded
      as a “centre” man by the Socialist-Revolutionaries!)
      at the Peasant Congress and on the Executive Committee of the
      All-Russia Congress of Peasants’ Deputies to
      “reassure” the peasants and feed them on promises.

Thebig bourgeoisie differ from the petty bourgeoisie in that
      they have learned, from their economic and political experience,
      the conditions under which “order” (i. e., keeping
      down the people) can be preserved under capitalism. The
      bourgeoisie are businessmen, people who make big commercial
      transactions and are accustomed to getting down even to
      political matters in a strictly business-like manner. They take
      the bull by the horns rather than putting their trust in words.

TheConstituent Assembly in Russia today will yield a majority
      to peasants who are more to the left than the
      Socialist-Revolutionaries. The bourgeoisie know this and
      therefore are bound to put up a tremendous resistance to an
      early convocation.Witha Constituent Assembly
      convened, it will be impossible, or exceedingly difficult, to
      carry on the imperialist war in the spirit of the secret
      treaties concluded by Nicholas II, or to defend the landed
      estates or the payment of compensation for them. The war will
      not wait. The class struggle will not wait. This was evident
      enough even in the brief span from February 28 to April 21.

Fromthe very beginning of the revolution there have been two
      views on the Constituent Assembly. The Socialist-Revolutionaries
      and Mensheviks, completely swayed by
      constitutional illusions, viewed the matter with thecredulity
      of the petty bourgeoisie who will not hear of the class
      struggle: the Constituent Assembly has been proclaimed, there
      will be a Constituent Assembly and that’s all there is to it!
      Everything else is of the devil’s making. Meanwhile the
      Bolsheviks said: only the growing strength

      and authority of the Soviets can guarantee the convocation and
      success of the Constituent Assembly. The Mensheviks and
      Socialist-Revolutionaries laid emphasis on the act of law: the
      proclamation, the promise, the declaration to call a Constituent
      Assembly. The Bolsheviks laid emphasis on the class struggle: if
      the Soviets were to win, the Constituent Assembly would be
      certain to meet; if not, there would be no such certainty.

Thatis exactly what happened. The bourgeoisie have all along
      been waging both in the open and under cover a continuous and
      relentless struggle against calling a Constituent
      Assembly. This struggle was prompted by a desire to delay its
      convocation until after the war. It expressed itself in the fact
      that several times they postponed the date of convocation. When,
      after June 18, or more than a month after the formation
      of the coalition Cabinet, the convocation date was at last set,
      a Moscow bourgeois paper declared this had been done under the
      pressure of Bolshevik propaganda.Pravdahas published
      an exact quotation from that paper.

AfterJuly 4, when the servility and timidity of the
      Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks had led to the
      “victory” of the counter-revolution, a brief but
      highly significant phrase—the “impossibly
      early” convocation of a Constituent
      Assembly!!—slipped intoRech.And on July16, an item appeared inVolya NarodaandRusskaya Volya, saying that the Cadets insisted on
      postponing the convocation of the Constituent Assembly under
      the pretext that it was “impossible” to convene it
      at such “short” notice, and adding that the
      Menshevik Tsereteli, a lackey of the counter-revolution, had
      consented to its postponement until November 20!

Undoubtedly,this item slipped in against the will of the
      bourgeoisie who cannot benefit from such
      “revelations”. But murder will out. The
      counter-revolutionaries, letting themselves go after July 4,
      blurted out the truth. Thevery first seizure of power by the
      counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie after July 4 was immediately
      followed by a measure (a very serious measure)againstcalling a Constituent Assembly.

Thatis a fact. And that fact reveals the utter futility of
      constitutional illusions. Unless a new revolution takes

      place in Russia, unless the power of the counter-revolutionary
      bourgeoisie (primarily the Cadets) is overthrown, and unless the
      people withdraw their trust from the Socialist-Revolutionary
      and Menshevik parties, parties compromising with the
      bourgeoisie, the Constituent Assembly will either never meet, or
      else will be just a “Frankfurt talking
      shop”,[3]an impotent and worthless assembly of petty bourgeois
      people frightened to death by the war and the prospect of the
      bourgeoisie “boycotting the government”, and helplessly
      torn between frantic efforts to rule without the bourgeoisie
      and the fear of getting along without them.

TheConstituent Assembly issue issubordinateto that
      of the course and outcome of the class struggle between the
      bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Some time ago,Rabochaya
      Gazetablurted out the remark that the Constituent Assembly
      would be a Convention. This is an example of the empty, wretched
      and contemptible bragging of our Menshevik lackeys of the
      counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie. If it is not to be a
      “Frankfurt talking shop” or a First Duma, if it is
      to be a Convention, it must have the courage, the capacity and
      the strength to strike merciless blows at the counter
      revolutionaries instead of compromising with them. For this
      purpose power must be in the hands of the most advanced, most
      determined and most revolutionary class of today. For this
      purpose that class must be supported by the whole mass of the
      urban and rural poor (the semi-proletarians). For this purpose
      the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie, i.e., primarily the
      Cadets and the high-ranking army officers, must. be dealt with
      mercilessly. These are the real, the class, the material
      conditions necessary for a Convention. You have only to list
      these conditions in a precise and clear way to understand the
      stupidity ofRabochaya Gazeta’sbragging and the utter
      foolishness of the constitutional illusions of the
      Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks regarding a Constituent
      Assembly in Russia today.

Whenlashing the petty-bourgeois “Social-Democrats” of
      1848, Marx was particularly severe in his condemnation of their
      unrestrained use of empty phrases about “the people”
      and the majority of the people in
      general.[4]It is
      well to
      recall this in examining the second idea, in analysing
      constitutional illusions about a “majority”.

Forthe majority in the state to really decide, definite
      conditions are required, one of which is the firm establishment
      of a political system, a form of state power, making it possible
      to decide matters by a majority and guaranteeing the translation
      of this possibility into reality. That is one thing. Another is
      that the class composition of this majority and the
      interrelation of classes inside (and outside) it shouldenableit to draw the chariot of state concertedly and
      effectively. Every Marxist knows that these two concrete
      conditions play a decisive part in the question of a popular
      majority and of the direction of state affairs in line with the
      will
      of the majority. And yet the political literature of the
      Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, and their political
      conduct even more so, betray a complete lack of understanding
      of these conditions.

Ifpolitical power in the state is in the hands of a class whose
      interests coincide with those of the majority, that state can be
      governed truly in line with the will of the majority. But if
      political power is in the hands of a class whose interests
      diverge from those of the majority, any form of majority rule is
      bound to become deception or suppression of the majority. Every
      bourgeois republic provides hundreds and thousands of examples
      of this kind. In Russia, the bourgeoisie rule both the economic
      and political life. Their interests, particularly during the
      imperialist war, violently conflict with the interests of the
      majority. Hence, from a materialist and Marxist, and not from a
      formally juridical point of view, we must expose this conflict,
      and combat bourgeois deception of the people.

OurSocialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, on the contrary,
      have fully demonstrated and proved that their true role is to be
      an instrument of the bourgeoisie for deceiving the people (the
      “majority”), to be the vehicle ofthat deception and
      contribute to it. However sincere individual
      Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks may be, their
      fundamental political ideas—that it is possible to break
      free of the imperialist war and gain “peace without
      annexations and indemnities” without the dictatorship of
      the proletariat and the triumph of socialism, and that it

      is possible to secure the transfer of land to the people without
      compensation and establish “control” over production
      in the people’s interests without the same condition—these
      fundamental political (and, of course, economic) ideas of the
      Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks are, in practice,
      nothing but petty-bourgeois self-deception, or deception of the
      masses (the “majority”) by the bourgeoisie, which is the
      same thing.

Thatis our first and main “amendment” to the
      majority issue as understood by the petty-bourgeois democrats,
      socialists of the Louis Blanc type, Socialist-Revolutionaries
      and Mensheviks. What, in fact, is the value of a
      “majority” when a majority is in itself only a
      formal thing and when materially, in actual fact, that majority
      is a majority of the parties through which the bourgeoisie
      deceive the majority?

And,of course—and this leads us to our second
      “amendment”, to the second of the above-mentioned
      fundamental conditions—this deception can only be properly
      understood by ascertaining its class roots and class
      meaning. This is not self-deception, not (to put it bluntly) a
      “swindle”, but an illusory idea arising out of the
      economic situation in which a class finds itself. The
      petty-bourgeois is in such an economic position, the conditions
      of his life are such that he cannot help deceiving himself, he
      involuntarily and inevitably gravitates one minute towards the
      bourgeoisie, the next towards the proletariat. It iseconomically impossiblefor him to pursue an
      independent
      “line”.

Hispast draws him towards the bourgeoisie, his future towards
      the proletariat. His better judgement gravitates towards the
      latter, his
      prejudice[5](to use a familiar
      expression of Marx’s) towards the former. For the
majority of
      the people to become an actual majority in state administration,
      the actual servant of the interests of themajority,
      and the actual protector of its rights, and so on, a certain
      class condition is required, namely, that the majority of the
      petty bourgeoisie should join forces with the revolutionary
      proletariat, at least at the decisive moment and in the decisive
      place.

Withoutthis, a majority is mere fiction which may prevail for a
      while, may glitter and shine, make a noise and

      reap laurels, but is absolutely and inevitably doomed to failure
      nonetheless. This, incidentally, was where the majority of the
      Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks came to grief, as the
      Russian revolution showed in July 1917.

Further,a revolution differs from a “normal”
      situation in the state precisely because controversial issues of
      state life are decided by the direct class and popular struggle
      to the point of armed struggle. It cannot be otherwise when the
      masses are free and armed. This fundamental fact implies that in
      time of revolution it is not enough to ascertain the “will
      of the majority”—you mustprove to be strongerat
      the decisive moment and in the decisive place; you mustwin.Beginning with the Peasant War in the Middle Ages
      in Germany, and throughout all the big revolutionary movements
      and epochs, including 1848, 1871 and 1905, we have seen
      innumerable examples of the better organised, more
      politically-conscious and better armed minority forcing its
      will upon the majority and defeating it.

FrederickEngels particularly stressed the lesson to be drawn
      from experience, a lesson which to some degree is common to the
      peasant revolt of the sixteenth century and to the Revolution of
      1848 in Germany, namely, disunity of action and lack of
      centralisation on the part of the oppressed owing to their
      petty-bourgeois status in
      life.[6]Examining the
      matter from this point of view, we come to the same conclusion,
      namely, that a simple majority of the petty-bourgeois masses
      does not and cannot decide anything, for the disunited millions
      of rural petty proprietors canonlyacquire
      organisation, political consciousness in action and
      centralisation of action (which is indispensable for victory)
      when they are led either by the bourgeoisie or by the
      proletariat.

Inthe long run we know that the problems of social life are
      resolved by the class struggle in its bitterest andfiercest
      form—civil war. In this war, as in any other war—a
      fact also well known and in principle not disputed by
      anyone—it is economics that decide. It is quite typical
      and
      significant that the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks,
      while not denying this “in principle” and while
      realising perfectly the capitalist character of Russia today,
      dare not face the truth soberly. They are afraid to admit the
      truth

      that every capitalist country, including Russia, is basically
      divided into three main forces: the bourgeoisie, the petty
      bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The first and third are spoken
      of and recognised by all. Yet the second—which really is
      the numericalmajority!—nobody cares to appraise
      soberly, neither from the economic, political nor military point
      of view.

Truthdoes not flatter. That is why the
      Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks shrink from recognising
      themselves.

WhenI was just beginning this article, the closing down ofPravdawas merely an “incident”, one that
      had not yet been legalised by the government. But now, after
      July 16, the government has formally closedPravdadown.

Ifviewed historically and as a whole, throughout the process of
      its preparation and realisation, this measure casts a remarkably
      bright light on the “nature of the constitution” in
      Russia and on the danger of constitutional illusions.

Itis known that the Cadet Party, headed by Milyukov and the
      newspaperRech, has been demanding repressive measures
      against the Bolsheviks ever since April. This demand for
      repression, presented in various forms—from
      “statesman-like” articles inRechto
      Milyukov’s repeated cries “Arrest them” (Lenin and
      other Bolsheviks)—has been one of the major components, if
      not the major component, of the Cadet political programme in
      the revolution.

TheCadet Party had been systematically, relentlessly and
      continuously demanding repressive measures against the
      Bolsheviks long before Alexinsky and Co. in June and July
      invented and fabricated the foully slanderous charge that the
      Bolsheviks were German spies or were receiving German money, and
      long before the equally slanderouscharge—running counter
      to generally known facts and published
      documents—of “armed uprising” or of
      “rebellion”. Since this demand has now been met,
      what are we to think of the honesty or intelligence of those who
      forget, or pretend to forget, the true class and party origin of
      this demand? How on earth can we help describing as crude
      falsification or incredible political stupidity the futile
      efforts of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks to make
      out they

      believe the “occasion” which presented itself on
      July 4 for the repressive measures against the Bolsheviks
      was an “accident” or an
      “isolated” incident? There must surely be a limit to
      the distortion of indisputable historical facts!

Youhave only to compare the movement of April 20–21 with that
      of July 3–4 to realise immediately that they are alike in
      character: both contained such objective facts as the
      spontaneous popular outburst of discontent, impatience and
      indignation, the provocative shots from the right, the killings
      on Nevsky, the slanderous outcries from the bourgeoisie,
      particularly the Cadets, to the effect that “it was the
      Lenin people who fired the shots on Nevsky”, the extreme
      aggravation and exacerbation of the struggle between the workers
      and the bourgeoisie, the utter confusion of the petty-bourgeois
      parties, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, and the
      tremendous range of vacillation in their policy and in their
      approach to the issue of state power generally. June 9-10 and
      June 18 give us just the same class picture in a different form.

Thecourse of events is as clear as can be: it shows growing
      popular discontent, impatience and indignation and an increasing
      aggravation of the struggle between the proletariat and the
      bourgeoisie, particularly for influence over the petty-bourgeois
      masses. Linked with this are two very important historical
      developments which have made the Socialist-Revolutionaries and
      Mensheviks dependent on the counter-revolutionary Cadets. These
      developments are, first, the formation on May 6 of a coalition
      Cabinet in which the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks
      turned out to be the hangers-on of the bourgeoisie, getting them
      selves more and more into a tangle by making deals and
      agreements with the latter, rendering them thousands of“services”, delaying the most essential
      revolutionary measures time and again; and secondly, the
      offensive at the front. The offensive inevitably implied the
      resumption of the imperialist war, a vast increase in the
      influence, weight and role of the imperialist bourgeoisie, the
      most widespread chauvinism among the people, and, last but not
least[1],

      the transfer of power—first military power and
      then
      state power generally—to the counter-revolutionary
      high-ranking army officers.

Thiswas the course of historical events which between April
      20–21 and July 3–4 deepened and sharpened class antagonisms, and
      which after July 4 enabled the counter revolutionary bourgeoisie
      to accomplish what on April 20–21 had stood out very clearly as
      their programme and tactics, their immediate aim and their
      “clean” methods, which were to lead to the
      achievement of that aim.

Nothingcould be more pointless historically, more pitiful
      theoretically or more ridiculous practically than the philistine
      whining (echoed, incidentally, by L. Martov as well) over July 4, to the effect that the Bolsheviks “contrived” to
      defeat themselves, that this defeat came from their own
      “adventurism”, and so on, and so forth. All this
      whining, all these arguments to the effect that we “should
      not have” participated (in the attempt to lend a
      “peaceable and organised” character to the perfectly
      legitimate popular discontent and indignation!!), are either
      sheer apostasy, if coming from Bolsheviks, or the usual
      expression of the usual cowed and confused state of the petty
      bourgeoisie. In actual fact, the movement of July 3–4 grew out
      of the movement of April 20–21 and after as inevitably as summer
      follows spring. It was the imperative duty of the proletarian
      party to remain with the masses and try to lend as peaceable and
      organised a character as possible to their justified action
      rather than stand aside and wash its hands like Pontius Pilate,
      on the pedantic plea that the masses were not organised down to
      the last man and that their movement some times went to
      excesses—as though there had been no excesses on April
      20–21, as though there had ever in history been a serious
      popular movement free of excesses!

Thedefeat of the Bolsheviks after July 4 followed with
      historical inevitability from the whole preceding course of
      events because on April 20–21 the petty-bourgeois masses and
      their leaders, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks,
      were not yet tied by the offensive and had not yet got
      themselves into a tangle by their deals with the bourgeoisie in
      the “coalition Cabinet”, whereas by July 4 they had
      become so tied and entangled they could not but stoop to
      co-operation (in repressive measures, in slander, in butchery)
      with the counter-revolutionary Cadets. On July 4 the
      Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks slid for good into the
      cesspool of counter-revolution; they had been steadily sliding
      towards it throughout May and June due to their role in the
      coalition Cabinet and their approval of the policy of offensive.

Wemay appear to have digressed from our subject, the closing
      down ofPravda, to a historical estimation of the
      events of July 4. But this only appears so, for the one can not
      be understood without the other. We have seen that, if we look
      into the matter and the interconnection of events, the closing
      down ofPravda, and the arrests and the other forms of
      persecution of the Bolsheviks are nothing but the realisation of
      the long-standing programme of the counter-revolutionaries, the
      Cadets in particular.

Itwould now be highly instructive to seewhospecifically carried out this programme, and by what means.

Letus have a look at the facts. On July 2–3 the movement was
      growing; the people were seething with indignation at government
      inaction, the high cost of living, economic dislocation and the
      offensive. The Cadets withdrew, playing a give-away game and
      presenting an ultimatum to the Socialist-Revolutionaries and
      Mensheviks, leaving them, tied to power but lacking power, to
      pay for the people’s defeat and indignation.

OnJuly 2–3 the Bolsheviks were trying to restrain the masses
      from action. This has been acknowledgedevenby an
      eyewitness fromDyelo Naroda, who reported on what took
      place in the Grenadier Regiment on July 2. On the evening of
      July 3, the movement overflowed its banks and the Bolsheviks
      drew up an appeal stressing that the movement must be
      “peaceable and organised”. On July 4, provocativeshots from the right increased the number of victims of the
      firing on both sides. It should be pointed out that the
      Executive Committee’s promise to investigate the incidents, to
      issue bulletins twice a day, etc., etc., has remained an empty
      promise! The Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks did
      nothing whatsoever, they didn’t even publish a complete list of
      the dead on both sides!!

Onthe night of July 4 the Bolsheviks drew up an appeal to stop
      the action andPravdaprinted it that same night.

      But that same night, firstly, counter-revolutionary troops began
      to arrive in Petrograd (apparently upon the summons or with the
      consent of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, of
      their Soviets—a “delicate” point regarding
      which, of course, the strictest silence is maintained even now
      when every bit of need for secrecy is past!). Secondly, that
      same night military cadets and suchlike, clearly acting upon
      instructions from Polovtsev, commanding, and from the General
      Staff, began raids on the Bolsheviks. On the night of July 4–5,Pravda’soffice was raided. On July 5 and 6, its
      printers’, “Trud”, was wrecked; a worker named
      Voinov was murdered in broad daylight for carryingListok
      “Pravdy”from the printers’; house searches
      and arrests were made among the Bolsheviks and the revolutionary
      regiments were disarmed.

Whostarted it all? Not the government or the Soviet, but the
      counter-revolutionary military gang grouped around the General
      Staff and acting in the name of the “counter intelligence
      service”, circulating the lies of Pereverzev and Alexinsky
      in order to stir up the army, and so on.

Thegovernment is absent. So are the Soviets; they are trembling
      for their own fate as they receive message after message that
      the Cossacks may come and smash them up. The Black Hundred and
      Cadet press, which led the hounding of the Bolsheviks, is
      beginning to hound the Soviets.

TheSocialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks have bound
      themselves hand and foot by their entire policy. Being bound,
      they called (or tolerated the calling of) counter revolutionary
      troops to Petrograd. And that bound them even more. They have
      sunk to the very bottom of the foul counter-revolutionary
      cesspool. They cravenly dismissed their own commission,
      appointed to investigate the “case”of the
      Bolsheviks. They basely betrayed the Bolsheviks to the
      counter-revolutionaries. They abjectly participated in the
      funeral procession of the Cossacks who were killed, and so
      kissed the hand of the counter-revolutionaries.

Theyare completely bound. They are at the bottom of the
      cesspool.

Theytry this, that and the other; they hand Kerensky the
      Cabinet, they go to Canossa to the Cadets, they organise a
      “Zemsky Sobor” or a “coronation” of the
      counter-revolutionary government in
      Moscow.[7]Kerensky dismisses Polovtsev.

Butnothing comes of all those efforts. They in no way change
      theactual state of affairs.Kerensky dismisses
      Polovtstev, but at the same time gives shape and legality to
      Polovtsev’smeasuresand to his policy; he closes downPravda, he introduces capital punishment for the
      soldiers, he bans meetings at the front, he continues to arrest
      Bolsheviks (even Kollontai!) in accordance with Alexinsky’s
      programme.

The“nature of the constitution” in Russia is
      coming out with striking clarity: the offensive at the front and
      the coalition with the Cadets in the rear have cast the
      Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks into the cesspool of
      counter-revolution.In reality, state power is passing
      into the hands of the counter-revolutionaries, the military
      gang. Kerensky and the government of Tsereteli and Chernov areonly a screen for it;they are compelled to legalise
      its measures, actions and policiespost factum.

Thehaggling going on between the Cadets and Kerensky, Tsereteli
      and Chernov is of secondary importance, if not entirely
      unimportant. Whether the Cadets win in this haggling, or whether
      Tsereteli and Chernov hold out “alone”, will have no
      effect on the actual state of affairs. The fundamental, the
      main and decisive fact is that the Socialist-Revolutionaries
      and Mensheviks have swung over to the counter-revolutionaries (a
      swing forced by the policy they have been pursuing since May 6).

Thecycle of party development is complete. The
      Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks have slid steadily
      downwards—from their expression of
      “confidence” in
      Kerensky on February 28 to May 6, which bound them to thecounter revolutionaries, and then to July 5, when they touched
      rock bottom.

Anew period Is coming in. The victory of the counter
      revolutionaries is making the people disappointed with the
      Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik parties and is paving the
      way for the masses to adopt a policy of support for the
      revolutionary proletariat.

[1]Thesefour words are given in English by Lenin.–Ed.
—Lenin

[2]Thearticle “Constitutional Illusions” was first published inRabochy i Soldatin 1917 and then appeared in pamphlet form under
the title of “The Current Situation”. To prevent the suppression
of the newspaper and ensure the secrecy of the Bolshevik Party’s
preparations for an armed uprising, the editors substituted “
including its drastic forms” for “including armed struggle”.

[3]Leninis referring to the Frankfurt Parliament, a national assembly
convened in Germany in May 1848, after the March revolution.
The majority in it was held by the liberal bourgeoisie, which
engaged in fruitless talk on a draft constitution, while leaving
power in the king’s hands.

[4]Referenceis to Karl Marx,The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis
Bonaparte(Karl Marx and Frederick Engels,Selected Works, Vol. 1,
Moscow, 1973, pp. 394–487).

[5]SeeKarl Marx,The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte(Karl
Marx and Frederick Engels,Selected Works, Vol. 1, Moscow, 1973,
p. 480).

[6]SeeFrederick Engels,The Peasant War in Germany, Moscow, 1965.

[7]Referenceis to the State Conference planned by the Provisional
Government. It was called in Moscow on August 12 (25), 1917.
Most of the delegates were landowners, members of the bourgeoisie,
generals, officers and Cossack leaders. The Soviet delegation was
composed of Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries. The
conference was expected to rally the counter-revolutionary forces of
the bourgeoisie and landowners to defeat the revolution. Kornilov,
Alexeyev, Kaledin and others put forward a programme for
crushing the revolution. Kerensky threatened in his speech to put down
the revolutionary movement and prevent seizures of the landed
estates by the peasants. The Central Committee of the Bolshevik
Party called on the working class to join in a protest action against
the conference. On the opening day of the conference the Bolsheviks
organised a one-day general strike in Moscow involving over
400,000 people. Protest meetings and strikes took place in several
other cities.